Ratreoz
A Soporific
So the definition of words change now when your talking about religion as opposed to not talking about religion?
I can define any word however I want. I provided a definition exactly because I was not using the common one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but since you're being bitchy about it I'll just use another term: "child indoctrination". Using the definition I posted earlier I consider it as immoral as brainwashing.
You can, but you would be wrong. I can define "house" to mean "wood". Of course, the meaning you get out of my words would be totally different than what I'm trying to convey. You have the same case here, misapplying a word with a clear negative connotation when shooting for guilt by association.
I fail to see how this differs to political group, socialization, and ethics when it comes to "child indoctrination". You might consider it immoral, but wouldn't that be just because you disagree with the subject or take incredibly extreme examples as representative.
And this is repersentative how?
Quote:
Quote:
Also Etymology is not definition.
ORLY? In this specific case I consider the etymology to be rather interesting.
It is, but that doesn't support the case at hand.
Quote:
Quote:
Also, I could have sworn that priests were paid to minister and manage, rather than sell belief. I thought that was the job of the media.
Yeah, because no priest has ever tried to convert a nonbeliever.
So, everything anyone tries to do at any point is now the reason they are paid? So I assume that I am paid by the Board of Elections to drink and party because I do so on occasion?